🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the deadly assault of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected global Jewish populations more than any event following the creation of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people it was deeply traumatic. For the state of Israel, it was deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist project was founded on the belief that Israel would prevent similar tragedies repeating.

Some form of retaliation appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response Israel pursued – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the casualties of many thousands non-combatants – constituted a specific policy. And this choice created complexity in the perspective of many US Jewish community members grappled with the initial assault that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult their remembrance of that date. In what way can people grieve and remember an atrocity targeting their community in the midst of a catastrophe being inflicted upon a different population connected to their community?

The Complexity of Mourning

The difficulty of mourning exists because of the reality that little unity prevails regarding the significance of these events. Actually, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have experienced the collapse of a decades-long unity regarding Zionism.

The origins of a Zionist consensus among American Jewry can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication authored by an attorney and then future high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement became firmly established after the Six-Day War during 1967. Earlier, Jewish Americans housed a delicate yet functioning parallel existence between groups that had a range of views regarding the necessity for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

Such cohabitation endured throughout the post-war decades, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, among the opposing Jewish organization and similar institutions. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, Zionism had greater religious significance than political, and he prohibited the singing of the Israeli national anthem, the national song, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Furthermore, support for Israel the main element for contemporary Orthodox communities before the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.

However following Israel defeated neighboring countries during the 1967 conflict during that period, seizing land such as the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish relationship to the nation changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, along with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in a developing perspective about the nation's vital role within Jewish identity, and a source of pride in its resilience. Rhetoric regarding the extraordinary nature of the victory and the “liberation” of land assigned Zionism a religious, even messianic, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, considerable existing hesitation toward Israel dissipated. During the seventies, Commentary magazine editor the commentator stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement left out the ultra-Orthodox – who typically thought Israel should only emerge by a traditional rendering of the Messiah – but united Reform, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and the majority of unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of this agreement, identified as left-leaning Zionism, was based on the idea regarding Israel as a progressive and free – while majority-Jewish – country. Many American Jews considered the administration of Arab, Syria's and Egyptian lands post-1967 as not permanent, thinking that an agreement was imminent that would guarantee Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and regional acceptance of the state.

Multiple generations of US Jews grew up with support for Israel a fundamental aspect of their religious identity. Israel became an important element in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut became a Jewish holiday. Blue and white banners decorated religious institutions. Youth programs became infused with Israeli songs and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing US young people national traditions. Visits to Israel expanded and peaked via educational trips in 1999, offering complimentary travel to the nation became available to young American Jews. The state affected almost the entirety of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, in these decades after 1967, Jewish Americans grew skilled at religious pluralism. Tolerance and communication between Jewish denominations expanded.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – that represented pluralism ended. You could be a conservative supporter or a leftwing Zionist, but support for Israel as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and challenging that narrative positioned you outside mainstream views – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine termed it in an essay that year.

Yet presently, under the weight of the devastation in Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and anger over the denial of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their responsibility, that agreement has disintegrated. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer